-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are forms other than Calvinism & Arminanism debate form to be C & A debate?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
They have gracious humor rather than man-centered humor.You have to remember, Dave, that most calvinists have no since of humor. God determined not to give them one.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
These folks give a fair explanation of it: What is Evanescent Grace?
In his book, "The Person and Work of The Holy Spirit", by Ron Crisp, Chapter 9, in part II in his treatment of, "The Work of the Holy Spirit in Common Grace", gives more Bible Explanations under:
I. CONVICTION
and II. Spiritual Influences.
III. The Purpose of Common Grace, explains why God has this Work of The Holy Spirit on the lost.
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit By Ron Crisp
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
The Babylon Bee has more sense than to write something like that, it had to come from the mind of a committed Augustinian.
INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
By John Calvin
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
@Alan Gross why not just go the the source regarding evanescent faith, Calvin, I quoted his words from his INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Dave how bad does a person have to be before you would class them as a monster? When you fall back on the old, well he was just a man of his times, that rings hollow when you then want to build him up as a great theologian.
Quote it for me, since I haven't heard of it before. Your ability to actually quote a full passages is not your strong point, but give it a try.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Yeah I guess instead of griping about the church discipline practices of some of these Reformed Baptist churches I should just be thankful they don't read Calvin. You ever read Luther on the Anabaptists? or Jews? You ever read what the Anabaptists did when they took over Munster? Sorry. He really was a man of his times.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
This fellow doesn't answer your thought that "God is responsible for sin and not the sinner", since no human has figured it out, but he does a God- Honoring job in his treatment of God's Sovereignty vs man's responsibility.
GOD'S PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/mell.sermon.ga.assoc.html
Of course, so does Calvin and the Westminster Confession
It WAS Calvin I was reading.
You may have it confused with “effervescent”. [emoji56]
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
When I say I have the material and quote it it is because I have the material. Why do you not like what Calvin said?
You seem to question everyone else but I do note that you don't back up what you post, you just expect others to believe you because your the great AustinC. You act more like a troll than a serious commentator.
11. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent. Bk 3 Chp 2A Sec 11
As I said the calvinist really has not basis for their salvation it is just a matter of hope that they are one of the so called "elect". With your theology your feet are firmly planted in the air you have no foundation on which to stand.
Last edited:
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
It is not a matter of what Luther, Calvin or the Anabaptists did. Any that did things that were clearly not biblical can not be called theologically good or great theologians. These were people that were supposed to represent Christ Jesus and if any of them did what Calvin and historically Augustine did and as you say Luther & the Anabaptists did then why would we hold them up in honor rather then holding them up in horror.
The bible and Christ Jesus are our standard not these or any other man. Sorry the excuse that they were men of their times really rings hollow. Christians are not to be indistinguishable from the world. Christ told us to be salt and light but it appears these people were salt to be thrown out and they snuffed out their light.
Last edited:
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
From a book on Baptist history, by one of my teachers:
Untitled
" Common sense should dictate that those described in Kurtz's History were not Anabaptists of the ordinary sort. If ever a person was adverse to war and murder it was the Anabaptists. They were also the people of high morals. It cannot be found where Anabaptists advocated polygamy. This part of their madness, these madmen of Munster probably got from Luther.
Ten years before this time Luther had written: "'The husband must be certified in his own conscience and by the word of God that polygamy is permitted to him. As for me, I avow that I cannot set myself in opposition to men marrying several wives, or assert that such a course is repugnant to the Holy Scriptures.'
About the same time he preached his famous sermon on 'Marriage,' which chastity may well pass in silence, beyond this one expression: 'Provided one has faith, adultery is no sin.'"3
These "Madmen of Munster" were not true Anabaptists.
Anabaptists Denial
[p. 227]
The Anabaptists of those days opposed the Munsterites. Menno Simons opposed them. Harold S. Bender writes the biography of Simons in The Complete Writings of Menno Simons translated from the Dutch by Leonard Verduin.
In that biography Bender writes: "But finally a far more serious 'break' into his parish occurred when certain ones of the 'sect of Munster' reached Witmarsum and 'deceived many pious hearts in our village.'
This occurred sometime in the year 1534, for the revolutionary kingdom of Munster was not set up until February of that year. The grievous error of the 'perverted sect of Munster,' as Menno repeatedly called them, was a very serious matter to Menno...the fight against this fanatical movement with every weapon at his command was Menno's chief concern in the years 1534 and 1535...."4
Some of Menno's own words about the men of Munster
were: "My soul was much troubled, for I perceived that though they were zealous they erred in doctrine.... I did what I could to oppose them by preaching and exhortations, as much as in me was. I conferred twice with one of their leaders, once in private, and once in public, but my admonitions did not help.... I also faithfully warned everyone against the abominations of Munster, condemning king, polygamy, kingdom, sword, etc."5
Martyr's Testimony
Again and again, the martyrs in Martyr's Mirror disowned the "Madmen of Munster." Let me here give the words of J. M. Cramp. Some of what he says is taken from Martyr's Mirror.
"It is observable, also, that the Baptist martyrs of this period frequently and indignantly rebutted the calumny cast upon them, and maintained that they were not answerable for the disgraceful doings at Munster and other places."
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Thanks Alan, I have no knowledge of the Anabaptists other than there was a group called by that name.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
The Munster Anabaptists were Baptists (probably closer to Baptists today than Anabaptists), but I agree their doctrine would not be considered Anabaptist theology.
The issue is the term Anabaptist was used to indicate those who bueve in believer's baptism.
But the historic norm for Anabaptist theory includes pacifism.
- Status